Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Bradley Moore v. City of Fort Walton Beach

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-13371
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Nature of Suit: NEW

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-13371 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 25-13371
Non-Argument Calendar

BRADLEY WAYNE MOORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus

CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH,
Municipality,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:25-cv-00656-MCR-ZCB

Before BRANCH, ANDERSON, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 25-13371 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 25-13371

Bradley Moore appeals from the district court’s dismissal of
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging Brady 1 and Giglio 2 viola-
tions by the City of Fort Walton Beach (“the City”). Moore argues
that the district court erred in dismissing his claims because they
were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 3 He also argues that
the district court erred when it dismissed his complaint for failure
to state a claim.
I. DISCUSSION

A. Failure to State a Claim
A district court’s sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) is reviewed de novo,
using the same standards that govern Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dis-
missals. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997).
Dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) are reviewed assuming all allega-
tions in the complaint are true. Id. A formulaic recitation of the
elements of a claim is not sufficient to survive a dismissal. Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Instead, to prevent dis-
missal for failure to state a claim, plaintiffs must allege sufficient

1 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
2 Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
3 Moore also argues his claims were not barred by the statute of limitations.
However, because the district court did not reach this issue, we will not ad-
dress it in the first instance. McKissick v. Busby, 936 F.2d 520, 522 (11th Cir.
1991).
USCA11 Case: 25-13371 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 3 of 4

25-13371 Opinion of the Court 3

facts to state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” Id. at
570. Additionally, we have stated that “conclusory allegations, un-
warranted deductions or facts or legal conclusions masquerading
as facts will not prevent dismissal.” Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaha-
ris, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002).
Prosecutors are required to disclose evidence that is favora-
ble to a criminal defendant when that evidence is material to guilt
or punishment. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Failure
to disclose upon a defendant’s request is a due process violation.
Id. If the undisclosed evidence would have been reasonably likely
to change the outcome of a verdict, the defendant is entitled to a
new trial. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972). However,
when a defendant pleads guilty, he “forgoes not only a fair trial, but
also other accompanying constitutional guarantees.” United States
v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 628 (2002). There is no constitutional require-
ment for the prosecution “to disclose material impeachment evi-
dence prior to entering a guilty plea with a criminal defendant.” Id.
at 633.
Here, the district court properly dismissed Moore’s com-
plaint for failure to state a claim. Many of Moore’s allegations are
conclusory and lack factual support. He fails to explain how any
alleged action or policy by the City violated his Brady rights or how
his rights were violated at all when the prosecution is not required
to disclose material impeachment evidence to a defendant prior to
the entry of a guilty plea. Ruiz, 536 U.S. at 633. Because there was
USCA11 Case: 25-13371 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 25-13371

no constitutional violation alleged, there is no basis for a § 1983
claim.
AFFIRMED.4

4 In light of our decision affirming the district court’s dismissal of Moore’s

complaint for failure to state a claim, we need not address the district court’s
alternate holding that the claim was barred by res judicata.